QuantOracle

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and determinism. The description adds value by specifying the analytical outputs (P&L curve, breakeven points) returned by the tool, though it omits details about calculation methodology or performance characteristics.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Extremely terse at nine words, but efficiently structured with the key domain concept first and specific outputs enumerated. No redundant or filler text, though the extreme brevity leaves room for expansion with usage context.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the 100% schema coverage and comprehensive annotations, the description provides sufficient context for a calculation tool by enumerating the returned metrics. However, it lacks guidance on strategy construction patterns or interpretation of results that would help an agent use this effectively.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema adequately documents all parameters (legs, S_range, points) including their semantics (positive=long, negative=short for quantity). The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, meeting the baseline expectation for high-coverage schemas.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the domain (multi-leg options strategies) and specific outputs calculated (P&L, breakevens, max profit/loss, risk/reward). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'options_price' or 'options_implied-vol' by specifying 'Multi-leg' and strategy-level metrics.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'options_price' for single legs, or prerequisites for constructing valid strategies. No mention of input requirements beyond the schema.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.